It's June, and I'm almost out of school completely. For my English final, we were told to make a presentation based on any important topic in the world today. I, of course, chose gun control. My teacher is one of those free hippie types, so I knew she probably wouldn't agree with my beliefs too much. I was right. In my presentation, I mentioned Virginia Tech and how there would have been a different outcome if anyone inside the building was armed. My teacher hated this, and she procedded to tell me how the armed security guards would have been enough to prevent the attack, "but there was a lack of communication inside the school". Bull****, right? Anyway, after I was done, she told me how you are 60-70% more likely to kill or injure a friend or family member with a gun inside the home than an intruder. Apparently she thought that every gun owner is a dumb redneck and keeps their weapon loaded in a shoebox in the closet. I know she's full of crap, but are there any facts to back this up? The only explanation I could think of is that your family members are in your house all the time, intruders, not so much. Comments?

Check out Dr. John R. Lott Jr.'s book "More Guns, Less Crime". In it you'll find all the statistical data to shut her up. It contains data which he compiled from crime stats of almost every county in the country. Dr. Lott was a University Prof. also...

__________________Guns Have Only Two Enemies-Rust and Politicians"The United States Constitution (c) 1791 - All Rights Reserved"If Guns Kill, Do Pencils Mis-spell Words?Pain is Weakness Leaving the Body - USMC"Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum"

This is one of those happy statistics that the antigunners created in their delusions and half lie/truth things because they are saying all guns are unsafe period .

First off they use the statistics of suicides in there and second they use figures from criminals who by law aren't suppose to have the gun in the first place "Which alone kinda proves the futility of gun laws now doesn't it ?"

It isn't uncommon in high crime ares with gangs and drugs everywhere for multiple family members to be in gangs and or involved with drugs , and perhaps alcohol addictions , It is also quite common that family or not they have disputes and use guns to settle them by shooting and perhaps killing each other .

As a matter of fact in the last week we have had a case on the local news with a small child who has shot himself to death with a 22 rifle that belonged to the step father a convicted felon who shouldn't have had it in the first place and he hasn't even been arrested and charged with a single thing .

Needless to say it was in a very high crime area dominated by minorities , and they were both minorities , you can bet a million dollars that if it had been a low crime middle class white neighborhood and he was white they would have arrested him on the spot and charged him with reckless homicide or child endangerment or some such thing .

My son did a similar paper in an Ohio high school his senior year using statistics from the FBI.

His teacher said, and I quote "because the FBI people carry guns you can't trust their information on the subject"

She gave him an F for faulty research information stating it did not match the information compiled by Handgun Control Inc. a reputable research organization without bias.

He was carrying a 3.94 GPA. And he had to redo the project over the summer to pass the required American Government course. He did it on Barbie doll fashions for the last 25 years just to mock her. She passed him with an A+ saying it was a brilliant piece of work.

__________________

npbwbass

Just because you don't believe in something is not going to stop it from happening.

You know, I am reading these stories by mopar and npbwbass and I can't help but become completely infuriated. Are there no standards of conduct for teachers anymore?

Just because you personally don't agree with the topic, or the source information, you are going to fail the kid? That is a real great way to raise some closed minded drones I guess, but doesn't this just smack of censorship?

It's not like they were doing their reports on the porn industry, brought in a live display, and it was met with complaints from offended members of the class & faculty.

So, you don't agree with the firearm statistics used - But they are published and here they are. That doesn't mean you made them up?! It means that you found a creditable source and quoted it in connection with your position. Isn't that was a report is all about in the first place?!

Can anyone positively tell me WHAT Shakespeare was thinking when he wrote "To thine own self be true" ?!? You can write what you THINK he meant, or you can write what someone else has interpreted it to mean. What is the difference if you take someone's word on something like that versus some statistics that were published?

Those teachers should be bounced to some uber liberal college in San Fran where they can wax poetic with the rest of Haight-Ashbury set.

i'm 9 credits away from a bachelors in political science. statistics are a great way to push forward an agument in Poli-sci. statistics are very easily manupulated and few people are educated enough to challenge them. 60-70% of people are more likely to hurt themselves or a family member with their own gun, AS OPPOSED TO WHOM? A NON-GUN OWNER? If i own a car i am more likely to get into a car accident than someone who doesn't own a car. Also, where was your professor's statistic cited from? the source of those numbers are more important than the numbers themselves. also, how was this data collected. did they survey gun owners who had already had an accident? police reports? residents in San Francisco or Austin Texas? these things impact a statistic. this should give you enough ammo to shoot down your professor's BS.
always remember, getting an education is great, do what you have to do the get a decent grade. but always remember that most academics live in a university environment sheltered from the real world. it's world of Theory, not actual application. let's not forget that it was accademics who dreamed up communism. in actual practice it didn't quite work out well.

You're kidding right ?? That actually came out of anyones mouth let alone the mouth of someone who's not only suppose to they themselves be educated much less a person who is suppose to educate others ??

Incredible , simply incredible , anyone that stupid shouldn't be allowed to be a Walmart greeter much less a teacher .

Anyone with more than a few dozen active brain cells can see the obvious bias of the organization in their name alone , unless of course the name and organization stood for the physical controlling of a firearm while in possession of it IE gun safety which they obviously do not .

Do we have Car control ? Knife Control ? How about Pointed object Control and Rock Control .

I don't know if the meek have inherited the world yet but the weak seem to have , the weak of mind that is .

You know, I am reading these stories by mopar and npbwbass and I can't help but become completely infuriated. Are there no standards of conduct for teachers anymore?

Just because you personally don't agree with the topic, or the source information, you are going to fail the kid? That is a real great way to raise some closed minded drones I guess, but doesn't this just smack of censorship?

The same sort of crap happens in schools at all levels. (We were sending my son to a very nice private school. The cost was steep, but we were willing to part with the dough. He won't be returning next year for several reasons, among them is the uber-leftist slant of the teachers and teachings.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by coltm4

60-70% of people are more likely to hurt themselves or a family member with their own gun, AS OPPOSED TO WHOM? A NON-GUN OWNER?

Then their figures are wrong. It would be 100% of people who own firearms are more likely to hurt themselves or a family member with their own gun as opposed to people who don't own a gun at all.